Trump's Defense of Why He Was OK With Bill Clinton's Womanizing Is "Bro Code" at Its Finest

Fresh off a scathing New York Times profile on Donald Trump's history with women, his recent pearl-clutching comments about Bill Clinton's past indiscretions seem...a little insincere.

Trump has recently said Clinton is a sexist and a rapist, and he's now calling Hillary Clinton an "enabler-in-chief" for reportedly helping to cover up her husband's infidelity and alleged sexual harassment and assaults against women including Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Gennifer Flowers. The three women came forward with allegations against Clinton in the early 1990s, but nothing ever came of them.

“In journalist Carl Bernstein’s biography, he claims Hillary herself was involved in the campaign to discredit Flowers. Former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos wrote in his memoir that Hillary said, ‘We have to destroy her story’ about one of Bill’s first accusers. That type of calculated attack on women is tough to defend.”

That Trump is going after the Clintons' seedy past is unsurprising and, frankly, something many have asked the media to cover more rigorously instead of summarily deciding these issues have been sufficiently "litigated." I'm betting Broaddrick—who said in 1999 that Clinton sexually assaulted her 21 years earlier—believes otherwise.

On Monday, Trump published a video that includes audio from Broaddrick and Willey (who accused Clinton of groping her in 1993), describing their experiences with Clinton, who is shown smoking a cigar. The video then cuts to Hillary laughing and asks, "Is Hillary really protecting women?"

I’ve heard Clinton defenders call this a “low blow," but it's fair game when assessing her uneasy role as a feminist who seemingly only fights for women who don’t threaten her stature. If Trump wants to go after Bill's womanizing past and Hillary's enabling behavior, he needs to explain, however, is why he actually defended Bill Clinton back in the day.

Plenty of Democrats said the same thing in the 1990s, but putting Bill's infidelity with Monica Lewinsky aside, it's actually kind of a big deal that the President of the United States lied under oath about it. You know, perjury?

What’s worse than the reversal, though, is the explanation the Trump camp has been giving for it. When asked why Trump changed his opinion on the importance of Bill's infidelity and alleged sexual assaults, Trump's lawyer and campaign surrogate Michael Cohen told CNN's Chris Cuomo that Trump was "just being a friend" back then. That's right—Trump was just protecting his pal, Bill Clinton.

That the Trump campaign came up with the "friend" defense as a justification for his change of heart tells you everything you need to know about the mentality of the candidate and the campaign. Someone actually thought this sounded good.

In essence, this is "bro code" at the presidential level. Trump wasn't defending Bill because he believed he was innocent, or didn't think that adultery was a big deal. He was defending him because, you know, "bros before hos."

One has to wonder: what else would Trump defend if the reputation of one of his bros was on the line? Do conservatives—or any voters—really want a president who has replaced a moral compass with a sense of loyalty most often seen in frat houses? (Apparently, enough people do—he is beating Clinton in some national head-to-head polls.)

To make matters worse, Trump himself offered a disturbing explanation for his past behavior. "I'm dubbed as a world-class businessman, which frankly that's what I am, and I got along with everybody," he told The Today Show. "I got along with the Clintons, the Republicans, the Democrats, the liberals, the conservatives. That was my obligation, as a businessman. But I get along with...the Clintons and I get along with everybody virtually, because that was—when I needed approvals, when I needed something from Washington, I always got what I wanted."

Hear that? Trump happily overlooked scandals, breaches of ethics and questionable legality among his powerful friends because he need them to get what they wanted. What happens when he’s up against Vladimir Putin? Will he overlook horrific human rights abuses to get what he wants? Will he turn a blind eye to corruption in Washington if it greases the wheel for his pet project? Will he allow his powerful buddies in business to cheat and steal if he’s benefiting from their influence?

If that doesn't offend voters to the core, I'm not sure anything will.

S.E. Cupp is a conservative columnist for Glamour's the 51 Million platform. She is also a CNN political commentator and the host of S.E. Cupp's Outside With Insiders on CNN.com.